ÿWPC4 …# VUNa %¯ 0(µ 0DÝU:! †[ 0ˆá 0Li 0Òµ 0:‡ 0dÁU:%w@_4Ÿî³ 1m¡ {d 0Är 0X6 0LŽ {ÊÚ {R¤ {¾öÆ´Æz 0c@ 0z£ÆÆã 0© 0˜ÁÆYZ By 0D– 0@Ú 0Lf 0Ju 0T¿ 0^ D3q ¤ 0hª D+ 0r= 0|¯ 0†+ 0± 1uA 0d¶ A©! 0KÃ!U>"U*L"B)v"DCŸ" AOâ"é1#†$† $Ó&%v~ù&vÓw( 0wJ. 0ŠÁ. 0 K/ 0´ë/ 0ÇŸ0 0Ûf1 0ïA2 AO03 0D3 D/Ã3 Bò3˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,hh,,,0nLlÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial RegularBursonBehanMillsapsBallardFortneyCaricoAstro DyleS.W.2d CrimtriersByrge AppHatchettRuffinMashburnRehyanskyGoultrie 10thTyson DUI TBICaruthersDillinghamRhoden EvidFergusonAshbyWilkersonSheltonWellesMcCutchenCreasyC]onsecutive(8(2¨$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ4°ÒÒX°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó> ÿÿ$Small Circleððà0 àZ<< KY.quotesindentions for quotesÓ °ÓÓ XÓÓ °ÓÓÓÓ °ÓÓ XÓÓ °ÓÓÓZpp ?·2opinionsopinions text styleÓ °ÓÓ ÓÓÓÔ‡X )XX XÔÔ‡X )XX X )ÔÓ °ÓÓ ÓÓÓÔ‡X )XX XÔÔ‡X )XX X )Ô(Wf|$ÄÄò òòòà@ìì*ìàÔ  ÔÔ AÔó óóó, øð AZ"Arial Regular ÌÍeÎDÏVÐDÑDÒUÓDÔDÖÓ€·‚^!ÿÿ!ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿFlanaryBlountvilleBurson HarrS.W.2dtriersByrge Crim App03C01MedlineTiptonMedlintuvwxyz#,37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(Wf|$ÄÄò òòòà@ìì*ìàÔ  ÔÔ AÔó óóó ^1$F¯$Ånumber headings for opinionsÓ  ÓÓ ÓòòÔ  ÔòòÔ !ÔÓ  ÓÓ Óóóóó(_¸Ç$ÈÈà0  àòòÔ  ÔÔ 8Ôóó(WV $ÆÆò òÔ  ÔÔ Ôó ó ^4'FÚâ$Ånumber headings for opinionsÓ ÓÓ  ÓòòÔ  Ôòòò òÔ !ÔÓ ÓÓ  Óóóóóó ó(WÙë$ÅÅò òòòÔ  ÔÔ Ôó óóó ^.!FšÐ$Ånumber headings for opinionsÓ  ÓÓ ÓòòÔ  ÔÔ !ÔÓ  ÓÓ ÓóóLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(;s˜$´´Ô2,ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à 6"" U 4cite-caseÔ‡XIXXXIÔòòÔ‡XIXXXIÔóóƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5|NN T2statutesquoted material no indent first lineÓ ÓÓ ÓÓ °ÓÓ °ÓÓÓÓ ÓÓ ÓÓ °ÓÓ °ÓÓÓX  ÏÁ23 inchesindent 3 inches inÓ ¸ ÓÓÓÓ ¸ ÓÓÓ…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 TDOCw]hereBomarH]abeas t]he d(3¯$©©Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò>c$"Small Circleð"ðà0 à3|xá2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô$$$$'ÿÿdxdH26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô'ÈÈÈÈdxd2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô*+,24567 ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ&;3›&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 dDDDD7Border 1dd&;ECþÿ << Gÿÿ ßÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€BÔÝ  ÝÔ€CÔÔ€CÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€CXÔÌÌò òMarch€4,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€CôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó |Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€BÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ%)ÝÝ  Ýà0 àà àà@ àÚ  ÚÚ  Ú |Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€BÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ%)ÝÝ  Ýà0 àà àà@ àÚ  ÚÚ  Ú ÉÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€BÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ X Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€CÔÔ€CôÔThe€first€four€criteria€are€found€in€òòGrayóó.€€A€fifth€category€in€òòGrayóó,€based€on€a€specific€number€ofÏprior€felony€convictions,€may€enhance€the€sentence€range€but€is€no€longer€a€listed€criterion.€€òòSeeóóÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115,€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.ÌPtPtHHøHÿöÿòV,(ühhØ hd'0ÿÎÿºF ® Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò(OÞ{$µµà0  àÔ2,ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#à(b²D$¶¶à0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2,ÔÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#à(xÓñ$··à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àÔ2,Ô(Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ (#¸ (#à(ŒÆ‚$¸¸à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àÔ2,Ô(Ú  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0h(#(#à(Ÿù…$¹¹à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àÔ2,Ô(Ú  ÚÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0Àh(#h(#à(³¶4$ººà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àÔ2,ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0À(#À(#à(Ǫ»$»»à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àÔ2,ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0p(#(#à&‚ƒCþÿ<< Cÿÿ($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€BÔÝ  Ý›Ñ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ ° ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÔ€CÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÞ ÞÌà@ àÌòòœÙ€ÙßR€FGEA1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›à@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEóóÌà@ àòòAT€KNOXVILLEÌÓ  ÓóóOCTOBER€1996€SESSIONÌÓ  ÓÌÓÓÒ€X€ÒÓ ` <ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à à*Ìà àà à*Ìà àAppellee,à à*ÌVS.à àà à*à àà à*ÌRICK€J.ÏGOULTRIE,à à*à àà à*à àAppellant.à àÓ ` hÜÓ*Ìà àà à*ÌÓ ` °œXÓà àÉC.C.A.€#€03C01„9512„CC„00406ÌÌBRADLEY€COUNTY€ÌÌHon.€Mayo€L.€Mashburn,€Judge€ÌÌÓÓÓÓ(Public€Intoxication€and€ÌPossession€of€Marijuana)ÓÓòòÉÒ/z„Ñ…ÒFor€Appellant:óóÌÓÓA.€Wayne€CarterÌAssistant€Public€DefenderÌP.0.€Box€1453ÌCleveland,€TN€€37364„1453ÌÌÉòòFor€Appellee:óóÌÌCharles€W.€BursonÌAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌÌHunt€BrownÌAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌ450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌÌÓÓÓÓJoe€RehyanskyÌAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌP.O.€Box€1351ÌCleveland,€TN€€37364„1351ÌÌÌÌÌÉÒÒOPINION€FILED:€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÓÓÓÓÌÌÌÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÓÓÌœ›Ö€HÖÖ€IÖà@ àò òòòOPINIONó óóóÌà àà àAfter€a€jury€trial,€the€defendant,€Rick€Goultrie,€was€convicted€ofÏpossession€of€marijuana€and€public€intoxication.€€The€trial€court€imposedÏconsecutive€sentences€of€eleven€months€twenty„nine€days€for€the€possessionÏconviction€and€thirty€days€for€the€public€intoxication€conviction.€€The€defendant€wasÏrequired€to€serve€seventy„five€percent€of€the€sentences€in€the€county€jail.€€Ìà àÌà àà àIn€addition€to€his€challenge€to€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€theÏdefendant€presents€the€following€issues€for€appellate€review:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(1)€€whether€the€trial€judge€erred€by€denying€a€motion€toÏrecuse;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(2)€€whether€the€chain€of€custody€for€the€marijuanaÏevidence€was€sufficiently€established;€andÌÌà8 àà8 à(3)€€whether€the€sentence€was€excessive.ÌÌÌÌà àà àWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àAt€about€3:30€A.M.€on€December€10th,€1994,€Patrolman€Steve€TysonÏof€the€Cleveland€Police€Department€noticed€a€woman€talking€to€someone€inside€aÏparked€car.€€€The€car€was€on€the€wrong€side€of€the€street€and€the€motor€wasÏrunning.€€Mindful€of€recent€complaints€about€drug€trafficking€in€the€area,€OfficerÏTyson€approached€the€vehicle;€he€could€smell€alcohol€through€the€open€windowsÏof€the€car.€€After€talking€with€the€driver,€Danny€McCutchen,€Officer€TysonÏdetermined€that€he€had€been€drinking,€gave€him€a€field€sobriety€test,€and€thenÏplaced€him€under€arrest€for€driving€under€the€influence€(DUI).€€ÌÌà àà àAt€that€point,€Officer€Tyson's€ride„along€student€pointed€out€that€theÏdefendant,€who€was€seated€in€the€front€passenger€seat,€was€dumping€a€green€leafyÏmaterial€out€of€a€cigarette€package,€where€it€was€stored€between€the€paperÏpackage€and€the€cellophane€wrapper.€€Officer€Tyson€determined€that€the€substanceÏwas€marijuana€when€the€defendant€stepped€out€of€the€car.€€Officer€Tyson€removedÏthe€cigarette€package€from€his€grip€and€placed€it€on€the€roof€of€the€car.€€When€theÍdefendant€was€handcuffed€and€in€the€car,€Officer€Tyson€picked€up€the€cigaretteÏpackage€and€placed€it€into€his€patrol€car.€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€refused€to€take€any€blood€or€breath€alcohol€test.€ÏOfficer€Tyson€sealed€the€cigarette€package€in€an€envelope,€initialed€it,€and€turned€itÏover€to€his€supervisor.€€His€supervisor€dropped€the€envelope€into€the€evidenceÏroom€drop€slot.€€Later,€an€evidence€officer€unlocked€the€room,€removed€all€of€theÏsecured€evidence€envelopes,€and€delivered€them€to€the€TBI€crime€lab€inÏChattanooga.€€This€was€standard€procedure.€€On€the€day€of€trial,€Officer€TysonÏpicked€up€the€envelope€from€the€evidence€officer€and€confirmed€his€initials.€€ÌÌà àà àDefense€witness€Tracy€Manus,€in€the€company€of€the€defendant€andÏMcCutchen€on€the€night€of€the€arrest,€testified€that€neither€she€nor€her€companionsÏdrank€that€night.€€She€contended€that€the€cigarette€package€was€never€in€theÏpossession€of€the€defendant.€€ÌÌà àà àMcCutchen€admitted€that€he€Ô% €1 Ôœhad€had›€"too€much"€to€drink€on€the€nightÏof€his€arrest.€€He€testified€that€he€saw€Officer€Tyson€pick€something€up€off€theÏground,€but€was€unable€to€see€what€it€was.€€ÌœÇ›à àà àWhile€acknowledging€a€"buzz"€from€beer,€the€defendant€stronglyÏdenied€that€he€was€intoxicated€or€had€trouble€standing.€€He€also€denied€ownershipÏof€the€marijuana.€€ÌÌà àà àšOn€appeal,€of€course,€the€state€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimateÏview€of€the€evidence€and€all€reasonable€inferences€which€might€be€drawnÏtherefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€The€credibility€ofÏthe€witnesses,€the€weight€to€be€given€their€testimony,€and€the€reconciliation€ofÏconflicts€in€the€proof€are€matters€entrusted€to€the€jury€as€triers€of€fact.€€òòByrge€v.ÏStateóó,€575€S.W.2d€292,€295€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€When€the€sufficiency€of€theÏevidence€is€challenged,€the€relevant€question€is€whether,€after€reviewing€theÏevidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€any€rational€trier€of€fact€could€haveÏfound€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòState€v.ÏWilliamsóó,€657€S.W.2d€405,€410€(Tenn.€1983);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€ÌÌà àà àPublic€intoxication€occurs€when€a€person€œ"appears›€in€a€public€placeÏunder€the€influence"€of€an€"intoxicating€substance€to€the€degree€that:€€(1)€€TheÏoffender€may€be€endangered;€(2)€€There€is€endangerment€to€other€persons€orÏproperty;€or€(3)€€The€offender€unreasonably€annoys€people€in€the€vicinity."€€Tenn.ÏCode.€Ann.€ðð€39„17„310(a).€€Officer€Tyson€testified€that€the€defendant€had€a€strongÍsmell€of€alcohol,€had€a€glazed€look€in€his€eye,€was€unable€to€keep€his€balanceÏwhile€standing,€and€responded€slowly€to€commands.€€The€defendant€was€unable€toÏexit€the€car€or€stand€without€help.€€Officer€Tyson,€who€knew€the€defendant€from€priorÏencounters,€had€seen€his€sober€behavior€and€believed€that€the€defendant€was€aÏdanger€to€himself€because€of€his€level€of€intoxication.€€ÌÌà àà àIn€our€view,€this€was€adequate€evidence€that€the€defendant€was€guiltyÏof€public€intoxication.Ìà àà àÌà àà àSimple€possession€is€defined€as€"knowingly€possess[ing]€...€aÏcontrolled€substance€unless€the€substance€was€obtained"€with€a€valid€prescription.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„17„418(a).€€Marijuana€is,€of€course,€a€controlled€substance.€ÏOfficer€Tyson€testified€that€the€defendant€was€holding€a€cigarette€package€with€aÏgreen€leafy€substance€tucked€inside.€€The€floorboard€of€the€passenger's€side€of€theÏcar€was€littered€with€the€same€green€substance.€€Having€years€of€experience€withÏthe€substance,€the€officer€recognized€it€by€the€look€and€smell.€€TBI€laboratory€testsÏconfirmed€that€the€substance€was€marijuana.€€Clearly,€the€evidence€is€sufficient€toÏsupport€a€conviction€of€possession€of€marijuana.€€ÌÌà@ àò òIó óÌà àà àThe€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€judge€should€have€granted€hisÏmotion€for€recusal.€€Because€he€had€appeared€before€the€trial€judge€on€a€numberÏof€previous€charges,€the€defendant€claims€the€judge€lacked€impartially.€€TheÏdefendant€insists€that€the€judge€had€always€ruled€against€him€and€imposed€lengthyÏsentences.ÌÌà àà àWhether€recusal€is€necessary€rests€within€the€discretion€of€the€trialÏcourt.€€òòCaruthers€v.€Stateóó,€814€S.W.2d€64,€67€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€A€judgeÏshould€grant€a€motion€for€recusal€whenever€his€or€her€"impartiality€mightÏreasonably€be€questioned."€€Code€of€Judicial€Conduct,€Canon€3(C);€Tenn.€Sup.€Ct.ÏR.€10;€òòState€v.€Jimmy€D.€Dillinghamóó,€No.€03C01„9110„CR„00319€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,Ïat€Knoxville,€February€3,€1993).€€This€court€will€not€interfere€with€the€trial€court'sÏdiscretion€unless€clear€abuse€appears€on€the€face€of€the€record.€€òòCaruthersóó,€814ÏS.W.2d€at€67.€€ÌÑ7€öXXdìXXdì7Ñœ›à àà àHere,€the€record€simply€does€not€support€the€defendant's€claims€ofÏprejudice.€€There€was€no€proof€whatsoever€that€the€trial€judge€had€acted€impartiallyÏin€any€of€the€prior€cases€or€had€made€comments€in€this€case€indicative€of€bias.€€Ìà àà àÌà@ àò òIIó óÌà àà àNext,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€asÍevidence€the€marijuana€in€the€cellophane€wrapper€and€the€report€from€the€TBIÏcrime€lab€analyzing€the€substance.€€He€insists€the€state€failed€to€adequatelyÏestablish€the€chain€of€custody.ÌÌà àà àThe€issue€of€the€chain€of€custody€was€not€made€in€the€motion€for€aÏnew€trial.€€"[I]n€all€cases€tried€by€a€jury,€no€issue€presented€for€review€[to€anÏappellate€court]€shall€be€predicated€upon€error€in€the€admission€or€exclusion€ofÏevidence€...€unless€the€same€was€specifically€stated€in€a€motion€for€a€new€trial;Ïotherwise€such€issues€will€be€treated€as€waived."€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(e).€€Moreover,Ïthere€is€no€transcript€of€the€hearing€on€the€motion.€€It€is€the€duty€of€the€appellant€toÏprepare€a€record€which€conveys€a€fair,€accurate,€and€complete€account€of€whatÏtranspired€in€the€trial€court€with€respect€to€the€issues€which€form€the€basis€of€theÏappeal.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€24(b);€òòState€v.€Rhodenóó,€739€S.W.2d€6€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1987);€òòState€v.€Milleróó,€737€S.W.2d€556,€558€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€Generally,Ïthis€court€is€precluded€from€addressing€an€issue€on€appeal€when€the€record€fails€toÏinclude€relevant€documents.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Bennettóó,€798€S.W.2d€783€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1990);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€24.€€Because€the€hearing€on€the€motion€for€new€trial€isÏnot€in€the€record,€the€issue€has€been€waived.Çà@ àò òIIIó óÌà àà àFinally,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€imposed€excessiveÏsentences.€€He€also€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€imposing€consecutiveÏsentences.€€ÌÌà àà àWhen€there€is€a€challenge€to€the€length,€range,€or€manner€of€serviceÏof€a€sentence,€it€is€the€duty€of€this€court€to€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€with€aÏpresumption€that€the€determinations€made€by€the€trial€court€are€correct.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€is€"conditioned€upon€the€affirmativeÏshowing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principles€andÏall€relevant€facts€and€circumstances."€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.Ï1991).€€The€Sentencing€Commission€Comments€provide€that€the€burden€is€on€theÏdefendant€to€show€the€impropriety€of€the€sentence.€€ÌÌà àà àOur€review€requires€an€analysis€of€(l)€the€evidence,€if€any,€received€atÏthe€trial€and€sentencing€hearing;€(2)€the€presentence€report;€(3)€the€principles€ofÏsentencing€and€the€arguments€of€counsel€relative€to€sentencing€alternatives;€(4)€theÏnature€and€characteristics€of€the€offense;€(5)€any€mitigating€or€enhancing€factors;Ï(6)€any€statements€made€by€the€defendant€in€his€own€behalf;€and€(7)€theÏdefendant's€potential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„102,€„103,€„210;€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€735€S.W.2d€859,€863€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).ÌÌà àà àIn€misdemeanor€sentencing,€a€separate€sentencing€hearing€is€notÏmandatory€but€the€court€is€required€to€provide€the€defendant€with€a€reasonableÏopportunity€to€be€heard€as€to€the€length€and€manner€of€the€sentence.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„302(a).€€Misdemeanor€sentences€must€be€specific€and€in€accordanceÏwith€the€principles,€purpose,€and€goals€of€the€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€ofÏ1989.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„104,€„117,€„302;€òòState€v.€Palmeróó,€902€S.W.2dÏ391,€393€(Tenn.€1995).€€The€misdemeanor€offender€must€be€sentenced€to€anÏauthorized€determinant€sentence€with€a€percentage€of€that€sentence€designated€forÏeligibility€for€rehabilitative€programs.€€Generally,€a€percentage€of€not€greater€thanÏ75%€of€the€sentence€should€be€fixed€for€a€misdemeanor€offender;€however,€a€DUIÏoffender€may€be€required€to€serve€the€full€100%€of€his€sentence.€€òòPalmeróó,€902ÏS.W.2d€at€393„94.€€In€determining€the€percentage€of€the€sentence,€the€court€mustÏconsider€enhancement€and€mitigating€factors€as€well€as€the€legislative€purposesÏand€principles€related€to€sentencing.€€òòId.óó€€ÌÌà àà àUpon€service€of€that€percentage,€the€administrative€agency€governingÏthe€rehabilitative€programs€determines€which€among€the€lawful€programs€availableÏis€appropriate.€€The€trial€court€retains€the€authority€to€place€the€defendant€onÍprobation€either€immediately€or€after€a€period€of€periodic€or€continuousÏconfinement.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„302(e).€€The€legislature€has€encouragedÏcourts€to€consider€public€or€private€agencies€for€probation€supervision€prior€toÏdirecting€supervision€by€the€Department€of€Correction.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„302(f).€€The€governing€statute€is€designed€to€provide€the€trial€court€with€continuingÏjurisdiction€in€misdemeanor€cases€and€a€wide€latitude€of€flexibility.€€TheÏmisdemeanant,€unlike€the€felon,€is€not€entitled€to€the€presumption€of€a€minimumÏsentence.€€òòState€v.€Creasyóó,€885€S.W.2d€829€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).ÌÌà àà àPrior€to€the€enactment€of€the€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989,Ïthe€limited€classifications€for€the€imposition€of€consecutive€sentences€were€set€outÏin€òòGray€v.€Stateóó,€538€S.W.2d€391,€393€(Tenn.€1976).€€In€that€case€our€supreme€courtÏruled€that€aggravating€circumstances€must€be€present€before€placement€in€any€oneÏof€the€classifications.€€Later,€in€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,€739€S.W.2d€227€(Tenn.€1987),€theÏcourt€established€an€additional€category€for€those€defendants€convicted€of€two€orÏmore€statutory€offenses€involving€sexual€abuse€of€minors.€€There€were,€however,Ïadditional€words€of€caution:€€"[C]onsecutive€sentences€should€not€routinely€beÏimposed€...€and€...€the€aggregate€maximum€of€consecutive€terms€must€beÏreasonably€related€to€the€severity€of€the€offenses€involved."€€òòTayloróó,€739€S.W.2d€atÏ230.€€The€Sentencing€Commission€Comments€adopted€the€cautionary€language.€ÍTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115.€€The€1989€Act€is,€in€essence,€the€codification€of€theÏholdings€in€òòGrayóó€and€òòTayloróó;€consecutive€sentences€may€be€imposed€in€theÏdiscretion€of€the€trial€court€only€upon€a€determination€that€one€or€more€of€theÏfollowing€criteria× ƒJ ××  ×€exist:ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ £ ÒÓÓÓ ` °§XÓà8 àà8 à(1)€The€defendant€is€a€professional€criminal€who€hasÏknowingly€devoted€himself€to€criminal€acts€as€a€majorÏsource€of€livelihood;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(2)€€The€defendant€is€an€offender€whose€record€ofÏcriminal€activity€is€extensive;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(3)€The€defendant€is€a€dangerous€mentally€abnormalÏperson€so€declared€by€a€competent€psychiatrist€whoÏconcludes€as€a€result€of€an€investigation€prior€toÏsentencing€that€the€defendant's€criminal€conduct€hasÏbeen€characterized€by€a€pattern€of€repetitive€orÏcompulsive€behavior€with€heedless€indifference€toÏconsequences;ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ £ Òà8 àà8 à(4)€The€defendant€is€a€dangerous€offender€whoseÏbehavior€indicates€little€or€no€regard€for€human€life,Ïand€no€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€in€whichÏthe€risk€to€human€life€is€high;€€€€à à€€€€ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ £ ÒÌà8 àà8 à(5)€€The€defendant€is€convicted€of€two€(2)€or€moreÏstatutory€offenses€involving€sexual€abuse€of€a€minorÏwith€consideration€of€the€aggravating€circumstancesÏarising€from€the€relationship€between€the€defendantÏand€victim€or€victims,€the€time€span€of€defendant'sÍundetected€sexual€activity,€the€nature€and€scope€of€theÏsexual€acts€and€the€extent€of€the€residual,€physical€andÏmental€damage€to€the€victim€or€victims;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(6)€€The€defendant€is€sentenced€for€an€offenseÏcommitted€while€on€probation;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(7)€€The€defendant€is€sentenced€for€criminal€contempt.ÌÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(b).ÌÌÓÓÓ ` °œXÓÌÝ‚ ÿÝÓ ° ÓÓ ÓÓÓÔ€CÔÔ€CXÔÝ  ÝÝ‚ ÿÝÓ ÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ‚ ÿÝÓ ° ÓÓ ÓÓÓÔ€CÔÔ€CXÔÝ  ÝIn€òòState€v.€Wilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€933,€938€(Tenn.€1995),€our€highÏcourt€held€that€consecutive€sentences€cannot€be€required€"unless€the€termsÏreasonably€relate€to€the€severity€of€the€offenses€committed€and€are€necessary€inÏorder€to€protect€the€public€(society)€from€further€criminal€acts€by€those€persons€whoÏresort€to€aggravated€criminal€conduct."€€The€òòWilkersonóó€decision,€which€modifiedÏsomewhat€the€strict€factual€guidelines€for€consecutive€sentencing€adopted€in€òòStateÏv.€Woodsóó,€814€S.W.2d€378,€380€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991),€described€sentencing€asÏa€"human€process€that€neither€can€nor€should€be€reduced€to€a€set€of€fixed€andÏmechanical€rules."€€òòWilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€at€938.Ý‚ ÿÝÓ ÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÌÓ ÓÝ‚ ÿÝÓ ° ÓÓ ÓÓÓÔ€CÔÔ€CXÔÝ  ÝÝ‚ ÿÝÓ ÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ‚ ÿÝÓ ° ÓÓ ÓÓÓÔ€CÔÔ€CXÔÝ  ÝTo€summarize,€in€addition€to€fitting€into€one€of€the€seven€statutorilyÏmandated€classifications,€the€record€must€also€establish€that€the€aggregateÏsentence€reasonably€relates€to€the€severity€of€the€offenses€and€the€total€sentenceÏis€necessary€for€the€protection€of€the€public€from€further€crimes€by€the€defendants.€ÍòòWilkersonóó,€905€S.W.2d€at€938;€òòGrayóó,€538€S.W.2d€at€392.€€The€record€must€showÏthat€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances€wereÏconsidered€before€the€presumption€of€correctness€applies.€€Ý‚ ÿÝÓ ÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÌÝ‚ ÿÝÓ ° ÓÓ ÓÓÓÔ€CÔÔ€CXÔÝ  ÝÝ‚ ÿÝÓ ÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ‚ ÿÝÓ ° ÓÓ ÓÓÓÔ€CÔÔ€CXÔÝ  ÝÇÓ  ÓÓ ÓÝ‚ ÿÝÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ‚ ÿÝÓ ° ÓÓ ÓÓÓÔ€CÔÔ€CXÔÝ  ÝÝ‚ ÿÝÓ ÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ‚ ÿÝÓ ° ÓÓ ÓÓÓÔ€CÔÔ€CXÔÝ  ÝÝ‚ ÿÝÓ ÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ‚ ÿÝÓ ° ÓÓ ÓÓÓÔ€CÔÔ€CXÔÝ  ÝIn€this€case,€the€trial€court€found€one€mitigating€factor,€that€theÏ"offense€neither€caused€or€threatened€serious€bodily€injury."€€The€trial€court€alsoÏfound€two€enhancement€factors:€€the€defendant€had€a€previous€criminal€record€Ïand€the€defendant€had€a€"previous€history€of€unwillingness€to€comply€with€theÏconditions€with€a€sentence€involving€release€into€the€community."€€After€weighingÏthe€two€enhancement€factors€against€the€one€mitigating€factor,€the€trial€courtÏsentenced€the€defendant€to€very€near€the€maximum€possible:€€thirty€days€for€publicÏintoxication€and€eleven€months€twenty„nine€days€for€possession€of€marijuana.€€Ý‚ ÿÝÓ ÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÌà àà àThe€defendant€had€an€extensive€criminal€record:€€two€felonyÏconvictions€for€larceny€and€burglary,€three€convictions€for€DUI,€and€two€convictionsÏfor€driving€on€a€revoked€license,€for€a€total€of€seven€prior€convictions.€€In€thatÏregard,€the€defendant€qualifies€as€"an€offender€whose€record€of€criminal€activity€isÏextensive."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„115(b)(2).€€The€consecutive€sentencing€wasÏappropriate.€€In€a€separate€case,€the€defendant€had€appealed€DUI€and€driving€onÏa€revoked€license€convictions€to€this€court.€€At€the€time€of€sentencing€in€thisÏpresent€case,€the€defendant's€convictions€had€been€confirmed€by€this€court;€yet€Ïhe€continued€his€criminal€activity.€€Thus,€enhanced€sentences€were€suitable.€€InÏour€view,€the€trial€judge€imposed€appropriate€sentences.€€The€aggregateÏsentences,€in€light€of€his€prior€record,€bear€a€reasonable€relationship€to€theÏseriousness€of€the€crimes.€€ÌÌà àà àšAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓÓ` °ŠXâx‘XÓà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌà àà àà àà àà àGary€R.€Wade,€Judge€ÌÇCONCUR:ÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌDavid€H.€Welles,€Judge€ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌJerry€L.€Smith,€Judge€Ì